1987 PLP 56 (SCMR)

S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑‑Record for Petitioners. Bashir Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 20th October, 1986. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner, a non‑claimant displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir, was transferred 18 Kanals of land consisting of a bungalow occupied by a local Ch. Jalal Din, Advocate, and an open space used by the petitioner for a Dairy Farm. On the information laid to the Directorate of Enforcement by respondent No.2 to the effect that the transfer of the bungalow to the petitioner (which was built over 11 Kanals of land) was irregular, the Director of Enforcement agreeing therewith made a reference of this alleged irregular transfer to Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who accepted it and deleted the bungalow occupied by Ch. Jalal Din, Advocate (Local). He, however, allowed the area on which Dairy Farm, measuring about 7 Kanals was being run, which was in possession of the petitioner to remain with him. The bungalow was deleted on the ground that the view of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the bungalow and the Dairy Farm formed one unit was entirely misconceived. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was heard by Mr. Justice S. Anwar-ul-Haq (then a Judge of the High Court) who dismissed the same, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner was never in possession of the bungalow; he never applied for its transfer and that the bungalow was quite separate and distinct from the petitioner's Dairy Farm. The Letters Patent Appeal filed against this judgment by the petitioner was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal to this Court. The main contention raised by Mr. S.M.Zafar, in support of this petition, is that the order of Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, Settlement Commissioner was a nullity in law inasmuch as his order was passed on 30‑6‑1962 and on this date clause (b) of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 stood repealed with the result that the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had no powers to deal with the case on that date (30‑6‑1962) inasmuch as with the repeal of clause (b) of section 10 of the Act the information laid by the respondent in connection with the alleged unauthorised transfer of the bungalow in favour of the petitioner had lapsed. Reliance in this connection was placed on this Court's judgment in Allah Ditta v. Haji Muhammad and others P L D 1974 SC 113. We observe that this contention was also raised by the petitioner before the Division Bench hearing the Letters Patent Appeal but the same was rejected on the ground that, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner was not entitled to obtain discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction because he could not be transferred any property in excess of what he had applied for and that if a writ was issued to restore the bungalow to him, this would amount to perpetuating an illegality. In coming to this conclusion the learned Judge relied on this Court's judgment in Wali Muhammad v . Sakhi Muhammad P L D 1974 SC 106. We entirely agree with this approach of the High Court and would add further that this Court has again, in a recent judgment, namely, Begum Shams‑un‑Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbassi and another PLD 1982 S C 413 reiterated that the High Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction is not bound to interfere in all circumstances and may refuse to do so even if the order of the Settlement Authority (in the precedent case the Chief Settlement Commissioner) was not strictly legal because the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction, in aid of injustice. The result is that there is no force in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed hereby. M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.